What is a 9/11 "Conspiracy Theorist"?

Well, that would be me and you. Yes, you as well. Anyone that has a theory about what happened on 9/11 is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. That
includes those that believe the official theory. I'll point everyone to the beginning of the NIST report to the "Disclaimers" page:

Disclaimer 3

In addition, a substantial portion of the evidence collected by NIST in the course of the investigation has been provided to NIST under
nondisclosure agreements.

That means NIST signed nondisclosure agreements promising not to divulge what "evidence" was actually collected or used in their investigation.
And it even states that a "substantial portion" of that "evidence" cannot be divulged. That means you or I don't get to know what that "evidence"
actually is. We just have to "trust" their word.

"Use in Legal Proceedings" disclaimer:

No part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a structural failure or from an investigation under the National Construction
Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such
report.

The above disclaimer is very important. Because NIST cannot divulge what type of "evidence" it collected and used in their investigation, their
investigation cannot be proven as factual and it cannot be taken as factual. Thus their word that we're supposed to "trust" cannot be used in a court
of law as evidence.

Furthermore, NIST used made-up computer simulations and calculations, theories, and guesses to come up with their report. That would be another reason
why nothing in their report can be considered factual and used in a court of law.

* NIST also tried covering up facts about 9/11 and deliberately skewed the truth about what actually happened.

NIST inexplicably decided against testing for explosives or incendiaries during their investigation, despite that almost a quarter of the first
responders interviewed reported explosions. Some even went as far as to say they heard timed/synchronous booms, and others even talked about flashes
with popping or exploding sounds going up, down, and around the towers like a belt, well below the collapse waves. There has also been audio/video
evidence of explosion sounds coming from the WTC.

NIST denies that there were any explosion sounds or any witnesses that reported explosions:

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by
witnesses.

This is NIST's only statement on the actual sounds or witness testimony to explosions.

** EXPLOSIONS**

Here is former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer talking about the explosions he heard as Building 7 collapsed:

Here's a video of Building 7 with an audible explosion heard at the beginning. This video, by the way, was in NIST's possession. An explosion can
clearly be heard, but yet NIST denies that the explosion heard in this video, that was in their possession, exists:

I'll also provide a link to the First Responder Oral Histories for those that would like to read the surviving first responders testimony to see how
almost a quarter of them reported explosions and more in the towers and Building 7:

NIST has been proven completely wrong on their claim that no audio/video or witness evidence exists for the sounds of explosions.

**INCENDIARIES**

NIST claims that there were no eyewitnesses that reported molten steel, and nobody has produced any evidence of such. From their Q & A:

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius
(2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius
(2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC
towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

What this means is that the temperatures did not get hot enough to melt the steel and that NIST found no evidence of molten steel. However, others
would say otherwise.

In the following video, you will hear one of the lead engineers of NIST claim that there is no eyewitness testimony to molten steel, nor is there any
physical evidence. Then you will hear eyewitness testimony and see the evidence to the contrary:

Furthermore, when FEMA did their investigation, they did a metallurgical analysis of some steel. They reported:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular
melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur
formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been
identified.

The above has been removed from Wikipedia because it is very damning. Thank goodness Google still cache's webpages for a certain amount of time:

FEMA also reported:

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor
sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked
all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

This swiss-cheese effect can also be explained by a thermitic reaction. In the following video, Professional Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole did several
tests with thermite and thermate and got the same exact results found in the FEMA Report:

As can be seen in the above video, NIST should've also tested for incendiaries as FEMA found evidence of what could be considered as a thermitic
reaction to the steel.

Dr. Stephen Jones, along with other scientists and researchers, have independently and preliminarily confirmed the presence of a thermitic substance
in the dust from ground zero. As that has been posted ad-nauseum on this forum, I won't bore people with posting a link or video to that study.

On top of all of the above, we were never shown a clear video of what struck the Pentagon. We were never shown any chain of custody of any aircraft
debris who's serial numbers would confirm the exact planes that crashed on 9/11. And the list goes on.

We were never shown any actual, definitive evidence that anything that has been "officially" claimed is actual and factual.

** SUMMARY **

Too many people quote the NIST report as though it were the bible to what happened on 9/11. As was shown above, NIST was not only proven wrong on more
than one count, they were shown to have deliberately deceived people about the facts of what really happened concerning explosives and incendiaries at
the WTC on 9/11.

The fact that NIST has zero credibility due to the above alone, on top of the fact that they even claim their report can't be used as evidence in a
court of law, should raise all kinds of red flags to anyone researching 9/11.

It is not a fact that three World Trade Center buildings collapsed due to fires and structural failure on 9/11. It is only a theory
based on the findings by an organization that has direct funding from the government. The deliberate deception can only be explained by NIST not
wanting to implicate the hand that feeds it.

We are to "trust" that NIST's investigation is accurate and factual. But NIST themselves won't even stand by their own investigation, nor will they
divulge what evidence they received and used in their investigation in the first place.

There's more than one conspiracy theory about what happened on 9/11. The "official" version is one of them.

There are other scientists and engineers researching 9/11 besides those employed by NIST. Follow the link in my signature to learn more.

As a none US citizen I complement you on yet another 9/11 truth thread.

However outside the US few people I know except the official line, theories differ but they all agree that the whole thing is a lie.

But it is a lie from the power; they have the ability to control the minds of people who call themselves patriotic. It is even easier to control the
minds of people who are too busy trying to survive in this treble world they have created.

So I ask is it time to give up?

Is there an end game in sight?

Also perhaps most importantly what will become of you all if the truth was ever accepted by the people?

The problem most people have when talking about eutectics and melting points is that they don't understand the significance of the phase change from
solid to liquid and vice-a-versa.

Eg: Sulphur lowers the melting point of steel.

Well that statement is correct, but you have to think about what it's actually telling you and how that relates to the real world and when you can
and can't apply it. So lets look at it once in the form of aliquid cooling and once in the form of a solid on heating.

Take a 0.2%C steel in it's liquid form say 1800°C. Add 5% sulphur in solid powder form to it. The sulphur will dissolve. The addition of sulphur
will lower the temperature at which this new composition freezes. Note how I've not used MP even though the freezing point is the same
temperature.

Take a 0.2%C steel in it's solid form say 25*°C. Add 5% sulphur to it. Err hold on, how do you do that? The steel is solid. The sulphur is solid.
How on earth am I going to mix these two solids? Remember the catch phrase?

Sulphur lowers the melting point of steel!

OK lets heat it up to 300°C. Steel is still solid. Sulphur is still solid. Hows that sulphur lowering the MP of steel? It's not.

But, but

Sulphur lowers the melting point of steel!!!

Sulphur melts at 388°C. Boils at 444°C.

Now heat up to 1000°C. Damn the steel is still solid and the sulphur has now boiled. Still another 500°C to go before the steel will melt. How are
we going to get the now gaseous sulphur ( S +O2 -->SO2 ) into the solid steel? How? How does thermite/mate magically do that? Remember:

Sulphur lowers the melting point of steel!!!Elebenty11111!!!

But it's not! It's not lowering the melting point of the steel in bulk at all is it - lol.

The process whereby gaseous sulphur will "mix" is called solid state diffusion, it only takes place at the very surface and will take a little time,
far more than the minute or two that thermite has got.

And this is what the truthers don't understand. They don't understand the chemistry, they don't understand the metallurgy or the thermodynamics.
I'd love to see them propose a mechanism for this solid powdered sulphur lowering the MP of solid steel in less than a few seconds, but they won't
be able to because it's impossible in the short time frame.

The way in which thermite "cuts" through steel is by transferring heat from the thermite reaction products to the steel. Not by lowering the MP of
that steel (by a slow mechanism) and then heating it. The thermite reaction is way too fast. The reaction virtually instantly creates temperatures
higher than the steel's MP. There is no point in adding sulphur it simply doesn't have time to do what truthers claim it does.

There is a point if you wish to lower the ignition temperature and create more flames.

"Sulphur lowers the melting point of steel" is only applicable when sulphur has been introduced into the steel when the steel was already a liquid
and has now solidified - e.g. during smelting and casting OR when solid state diffusion is occurring which takes time.

Are the Laws of Physics capable of giving a damn about any Conspiracy Theory?

Just because we can know what could not have happened that day does not mean we can figure out what did happen. It should be possible to determine
whether or not airliners could TOTALLY OBLITERATE buildings more than 2000 times their mass in less than TWO HOURS.

The NISt admitted in three places that distribution of weight information was needed on the towers.

That is an excellent presentation that strikes at the heart of NIST's credibility. I know the full story is a long one, but the part with how NIST's
investigations cannot even be used in a court of law is very damning.

America is a big place and an new investigation will be focused on accountability, not destruction. Having the support of the UN behind it will
provide the resource to help manage the fallout as the reality of the situation becomes evident and assist America to get back on its feet. By
cleaning up the corruption behind this mess, I do see a lot of other big global issues also starting to improve. It is when we fail to do nothing and
let this uncontrolled corruption run free that the world is at a serious threat.

No part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a structural failure or from an investigation under the National Construction
Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such
report.

The above disclaimer is very important. Because NIST cannot divulge what type of "evidence" it collected and used in their investigation, their
investigation cannot be proven as factual and it cannot be taken as factual. Thus their word that we're supposed to "trust" cannot be used in a
court of law as evidence.

Furthermore, NIST used made-up computer simulations and calculations, theories, and guesses to come up with their report. That would be another reason
why nothing in their report can be considered factual and used in a court of law.

Blatantly, downright false.

US Code > TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 7 > § 281a

§ 281a. Structural failures

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, on its own initiative but only after consultation with local authorities, may initiate and conduct
investigations to determine the causes of structural failures in structures which are used or occupied by the general public. No part of any report
resulting from such investigation, or from an investigation under the National Construction Safety Team Act , shall be admitted as evidence or used in
any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such
report.

Well done sir. This is the type of post that gives me hope for ATS. Yes, there isn't really anything new in here, and hasn't been for several
years, but you've done a great job giving examples of ow the NIST report is, at best, flawed, at worst, a deliberate deception.

I read parts of it, but was unaware until this post that they actually come out and say the NIST report can't be used as factual evidence in a court
of law.

That should be a giant smack in the face of anyone still clinging to the official narrative.

We have evidence.
We can't show you the evidence, and we can't tell you where it came from
Our report closes the case on 911, but won't hold up in court.

think about that long and hard.

No, I don't blame the official story followers. I was one of them, and in my search of information to "blast away you stupid truthers" I became
one. I won't hound you, or make fun of you, or call you a sheep, or stupid. I won't demand you watch this video, or read that report.

What I will do, and have done, is ask you to prove me wrong.

Anyways, to get back to the thread title for a second....

most of us here are not 911 conspiracy theorists. Most of us aren't actively thinking up new theories as to what happened. A few people in the
right places are doing the work, the rest of us are essentially agreeing with them.

Am I a conspiracy "theorist" if I'm merely listing to others theories (thermite, thermate, mossad) and agreeing? Am I actively theorizing
anything? Not really. Basically we're all at a stand still. We thought that with the truth and irrefutable facts on our side, people would
listen.

This clearly isn't the case, so where are we now?

Far, far past the theorizing stage. Now we're preaching to the choir.

I've had similar discussions with friends and family.....

Steel melts at 1800 degrees. The steel certified for the world trade center could handle over 2000 degrees for extended periods. Office fires burn
no hotter than 1000 degrees. The jet fuel, which is mostly kerosene, burned up almost instantly in those massive fire balls. Fires, and office
fires specifically, burn unevenly, using up the fuel and moving to a new source. This means a symmetrical collapse of all the core columns at once is
almost impossible.

NIST report says it was the fire

Molten metal (can't specifically say steel) pouring out the side of the building, pools of molten metal under the wreckage that stayed hot for weeks,
evidence of nano thermite in the videos (molten metal pouring out the side of the tower) nano thermite particulate found in several dust samples.
Numerous witnesses including police and fire crews reported explosions and bombs, which is also documented in police band radio transmissions

NIST report says no explosions, no molten metal, no witnesses made those claims

It all comes back to the NIST report.

If the NIST report said on 911 the laws of gravity stopped applying, would you blindly believe that? We most people have, as according to the NIST
report, the laws of physics, the ones we've lived with forever and have tested and proven over and over, did not apply to the planes, or the WTC
towers, and especially building 7, which was completely omitted from the report.

How exactly do you disprove the use of explosives if you fail to even look? How can you ignore building 7, limited fires, not hit by a plane, but
collapsed at free fall speeds into it's basement. 20 minutes AFTER a live BBC report said it collapsed.

No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire.

WTC towers were designed to take direct impacts from passenger jets. Very little physical damage, to the core structure, could be achieved with
planes alone.

And hell, even if you think 19 guys in caves did this, couldn't they have brought bombs onboard the planes? How has that option been overlooked?

Bah, sorry I'm rambling. Anyways, I'll be linking to this thread for a long, long time.

I will tell you who is NOT a conspiracy theorist. The people who claim that the conspiracy surrounding that day was simply a coverrup of shoddy
building materials and a history of coverrup inspections. These people still believe that terrorists hijacking airplanes caused 3 buildings to
collapse, and pretend as if they do not believe the official story. These people are only espousing this nonsense to appear as if they are part of
the conspiracy crowd, when in fact they simply exist to push the government's official story.

So, yes, many of us are 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but beware the ones that pretend they are conspiracy theorists just to appear as if they are on the
level with the rest of us, for they are likely disinfo agents.

NIST is an example of religious fundamentalism becoming scientific fundamentalism, the only difference being instead of obeying a "God" the sciences
now obey "Government". Unfortunately many so called rationalists will claim science is on their side on the issue of 9/11 because the Government
sciences said so. As Ayn Rand said, Government Science is an oxymoron, you can't have science with collectivism.

Suppose the scientific educational level in the United States was such that whenever someone first suggested this idea the response was, "So few
people will believe that it will never work!"

Then it never would have happened.

9/11 is the result of some people's knowledge of mass stupidity long before 9/11. But this has certainly changed my perspective on humanity. People
that know enough to talk about Potential Energy don't bring up the need to have accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete to compute
that Potential Energy, like Frank Greening. So what is that all about?

I'm a degree'd chemist and I call bull poop on the "sulfur in everything" comment. Plus I saw several videos of molten metal and read the reports of
thermite like material that did NOT form itself on the materials allowed to be tested at the 911 site. We can't expose the truth to ourselves or
anyone else for that matter if we allow shills to just say anything because they dare not look where licensed professionals keep saying "must be
explored or we won't know the truth." to paraphrase.

If your not willing to look at all the data fairly, you're simply not scientific enough to open your pie hole. Until my understanding of elemental
Physics changes I am sticking to we've been lied to and it is time to get to the absolute bottom of this. FURTHER MORE as far as credible witness' go,
I will take the NYPD and the NYFD statements on explosions during the whole of the 911 event as admissable evidence of treason by someone above them
in the chain of command if I were the Attorney General and the FBI. Criminals of this nature need prosecuting and we need the proper justice these
fools deserve for their utter treachory to the citizens of the USA! It appears to have justified the war in the Middle East that is both ruining our
economy and standing in the world. All this while our soldiers die and our border patrol is overmatched. How can anyone not connect these dots and see
something is way off with the official version who is not a shill?

No matter how many times you say it, no one does much about it. No one has been arrested on suspicion of conspiracy for 9-11, yet any of us can be
arrested at any time anywhere for anything we "might" do in the future. That's the reality of it folks. Those who control the police and armies
can control their own nations' thoughts and beliefs, been happening for 1000s of years, nothing has changed much, this is just our Trojan horse
experiences with the NWO.

As long as people can BELIEVE airliners could destroy the buildings talking about Inside Jobs is silly. This is a physics problem so the engineers
and physicists need to be confronted about it. Skyscrapers must hold themselves up. So they need to explain why they don't talk about how the steel
and concrete had to be distributed in the towers. This is grade school physics.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.